PICKERINGTON CITY COUNCIL

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2009

COUNCIL WORK SESSION

8:50 P.M.

1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor O’Brien opened the Council Work Session at 8:50 P.M., with the following council members present: Mrs. Sanders, Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mayor O’Brien. No members were absent. Others present were: Tim Hansley, Lynda Yartin, and Phil Hartmann.

2. SCHEDULED MATTERS:

A. Review and discussion of proposed changes to City Charter. Mr. Smith stated Council had been asked to take the month of June and think about what was before them and provide comments. He stated three comments were received (Attachment 1 to these minutes), two being fairly close to being the same in that Council should not provide input to the Charter Review Commission.

Mr. Smith stated he felt what should come out of this work session is for Council to give Rules Committee some guidance on where they wanted Rules to go with this; did they want Rules to package everything up and recommend a Charter Review Commission to Council, let Council empanel it, and go. Mr. Fix stated when this process began a couple of years ago, he felt everyone knew it would be difficult to get all of Council to agree on what changes should be recommended to the Charter Review Commission, and clearly there are several different opinions on it. He stated he felt it would be irresponsible to just give the Charter Commission our existing Charter and tell them to go with it because they do not deal with the Charter every day and they do not know what the issues were or even what the housekeeping things should be taken care of. He stated he felt Council had to provide them with some idea of the changes they would like to see, and he felt that included the revised document that went through Rules and Council has begun to review, and all of the notes that exist today, along with notes anyone wants to contribute. He stated if give them the existing Charter, the revised Charter that went through Rules, seat a Charter Commission and appoint one or two council members to work with the Charter Commission to get it done. Mr. Sabatino stated he respectfully disagreed with some of the things Mr. Fix had said. He stated maybe it is a good thing that we empanel a group of citizens that do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the Charter Review Commission. Mr. Sabatino stated there have been two Review Commissions in the past and neither of them had any input from Council given to them and he felt there was a reason for that. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt the Charter is a document that gives power to the citizens and we shouldn’t take power away from the citizens for the sake of desire or expediency or anything else. He stated he felt the government was designed to be deliberative and not expedient, particularly in talking about the rights of the citizens that live here. He stated further he felt some of the suggestions look to doing things that take power away from the citizens and their rights to have an input in how a government operates, opportunities to have input, and his feeling was that the politicians should stay out of the process. Mr. Sabatino stated everyone knew what the process was to be, but of the three people that responded, two said leave the process alone and one said do something with it. Mayor O’Brien stated his question would be if everyone thought it was important to articulate what council thought. Mr. Wisniewski stated to a certain extent, if there are minor things that are problematic that the Commission would not realize, he felt it was important to point out those things. Mayor O’Brien questioned if that would be considered “housekeeping” items, and Mr. Wisniewski stated he felt Council should send to the Commission what they agreed on as a group, not a majority, but that all seven council members and the Mayor agreed were housekeeping, nonsubstantive changes to go forward. Mr. Smith stated everyone had been give a month to do this and only three members responded. Mayor O’Brien stated he had some notes, but he had wanted to discuss them before turning them in and Mr. Fix stated his notes were in the two and one-half years they had spent reviewing the Charter. Mayor O’Brien stated he wanted a clear understanding of the process. He stated one question was if we had me the requirements of the Charter, we have reviewed it, or to fulfill the requirement do we have to seat a Charter Review Commission. Mr. Hartmann stated the Charter must be reviewed every ten years, and the way the Charter is written, it is very ambiguous. It states it shall be reviewed every ten years. Mayor O’Brien stated then technically we have met the requirement. Mr. Hansley stated he would respectfully disagree because he felt the clear implication is that every ten years you have to seat a Charter Commission and they have to decide whether or not to do anything. He stated the Charter does not say that, but he has read many charters, and he agrees it is subject to interpretation. Mr. Hansley stated he believed the intent is that every ten years a Charter Commission looks at the Charter and decides what to do about it. Mr. Hartmann stated it should be written that way, and Mr. Hansley stated he agreed, that is one of the things that should be clarified. Mr. Hartmann stated the Charter can be read that way, and every other Charter he has ever read states a Charter Review Commission shall be seated every ten years, and he felt this Charter was written this way to avoid seating a Charter Commission. Mr. Hartmann stated if precedent has been to seat a Commission every ten years he would bow to precedent, but when you read the Charter it is not clear. Mayor O’Brien stated then if Council interprets it that we must seat a Charter Review Commission and they come back with a recommended list of changes, the question is does Council have to accept that in whole and send it to the ballot or could they reject it in whole, not send it to the ballot, and still say that we are not sending it because when you look at the scope of the changes how would you be able to get it on the ballot and explain it to anyone. He questioned how you would package this? Mr. Wisniewski stated it would basically be a replacement of the Charter. Mr. Hansley stated a lot of Charters explain that the requirement is you publish it in the newspaper of general circulation in its entirety or you mail a copy to every registered voter or every home in town. He stated our Charter is silent on that.

Mr. Sabatino questioned what would be wrong with seating the Charter Review Commission without any input from Council, and then those that want to come in and provide testimony as a private citizen/council member before the Commission. Mr. Fix stated that is basically just going around it because he could come in with this Charter and read every single change that he thought made sense. Mr. Sauer stated as a citizen that was his right, but he felt that was a major difference than sending it from a voted body of seven members to the Charter Review Commission and telling them this is what we like and what we would like to see you do. Mr. Smith stated he did not propose to say that, and Mr. Sauer stated even without saying it that is the perception that would come. Mr. Sauer stated in talking about the document that defines the City government, he felt it was completely irresponsible to have those that are the power of the city government changing that document. Mr. Fix stated this document defines how the city government works, and Mr. Sauer stated that is correct. Mr. Fix stated who knew better about how city government is functional and dysfunctional than those who work in city government. Mr. Sabatino stated it is not supposed to be an exercise in efficiency and expediency that some members are trying to make it. Mr. Smith stated that is why it has taken a year and a half to get to this point already. Mrs. Sanders stated she was not here when it began, but what were the intentions when it began as to what the process would be when the review was completed. Mr. Sabatino stated there was never a vote taken to empanel this charter review process and if you look at how much money we have racked up with Schottenstein’s there has been a major expenditure of funds. Mr. Fix stated then after participating in this for two and a half years and never raised a concern about it, now he is concerned. Mr. Sabatino stated he has made comments from the very beginning that he did not think Council should do this. Mr. Fix stated that is not correct because Mr. Sabatino participated in this process and never did he say this is a bad idea and they should not be doing it. Mr. Sabatino stated he has asked many times where we voted to have Council review this. Mr. Fix stated in the beginning the idea was we had a Charter, we had a requirement to seat a Charter Review Commission, and rather than just throw the Charter on the table, they thought it made sense for Rules Committee to go through it, and Council was well aware of it for the past two and one-half years, and no one raised a concern, to go through it and make recommended changes so that when we empanelled this Charter Review Commission they weren’t starting at ground zero, they had some idea of what the issues were and what changes council thought, as those who work in this government every day, made sense. Mrs. Sanders stated now that this has gone through Rules Committee, is there something that all of Council needs to do with this document or should this document that came through Rules just go to the Charter Review Commission? Mr. Sabatino stated going through Rules does not make it right and fully accepted by everyone. Mr. Smith stated that is why in the original process every council member could put their own comment on top of the document about what they liked, disliked, or other information they wanted to go to the Charter Review Commission. He stated the document before everyone is a consensus, at best, already of Rules. He stated very few of the sections were unanimously accepted. Mr. Smith stated he never envisioned Council to vote up or down on this and Mr. Fix stated that was correct, they never even envisioned having a vote on this. Mr. Fix stated the idea was to have a conversation with Council, go through some work sessions, get everyone’s thoughts on it, and then turn it over to the Review Commission. Mr. Sauer stated from a philosophical point of view with regards to this, did they not see the danger of a council, maybe not this one, but the potential lies there that if council does this review and makes these changes; you are talking about the way council is seated, about the number of members on council, about the way the Mayor handles his duties, about the way Council handles their duties, what power they exercise, how they exercise that power, and he questioned if he felt it was responsible to stick that power in control of the ones that wield it, or it is more responsible to stick it in the hands of the citizens who are subjected to it. Mr. Fix stated it was never suggested that it would not be citizens on the committee and that it would not be citizens on that committee who pass it forward to the public to vote on it. He stated that has never been suggested, nor has it been suggested that Council would unilaterally make changes. Mr. Fix continued that seven people would be seated that have never dealt with this document and they would have no idea of what they are dealing with. Mr. Sauer stated he would hope we reasonable enough commission members that in doing their duty responsibly, they would accept testimony as they required it not as council was telling them they needed it. He stated he felt there was a major difference in them asking for advice and guidance than in council giving it to them without their asking for it. Mr. Smith stated philosophically speaking we have had two Charter Review Commissions and we got what we have now, and he felt everyone would agree there are problems with the Charter. Mr. Sabatino stated he did not know that he would endorse that. Mr. Smith stated the Charter is disconnected, it is full of typos, and it is ambiguous to a large degree in some areas and just as specific to a gnat’s wings on others. Mr. Sauer stated so was the United States Constitution and Mr. Smith replied that the Constitution was not meant to administer a city. Mr. Smith stated there is a huge difference and as you get to lower forms of government you need documents a little more specific and directional. Mr. Smith stated further he felt it would be just as irresponsible for Council as a body not to try to give a starting point, a head start, advance information, or whatever you want to call it, not direction. He stated if any council member ever said they were giving direction to the Charter Review Commission he felt they would be way off base, we would be giving them information based on experience. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt what we would be giving would be council member’s opinions. Mr. Sauer stated he felt a redlined version of the Charter would be more than testimony, and Mrs. Hammond stated in her opinion that would mean changes that had been made. Mrs. Hammond stated she felt the implication in a red lined version was that was what Council wanted. She stated she has no problem with housekeeping things, but some of the fundamental changes that are red lined or changed in this document are changes she did not feel, as council members, they had the right to even suggest and should be entirely up to the Charter Review Commission. Mrs. Hammond stated she has never liked this process. Mr. Sabatino stated his understanding that this meeting was to discuss Council’s responses and we got three responses so that is all that should be discussed. Mr. Sabatino stated the direction at the last meeting was that council members were supposed to look over this version and whatever their position was on it, so state. He stated three people so stated, four people were silent, and now they want another bite of the apple now that they choose not to participate. Mrs. Sanders stated after we give the Commission a draft, and as an editor she knew that when you looked at things that were lined out it did not mean that was a done deal, it meant that is a change if they want it to. Mr. Smith stated that is why the old words are still there. Mrs. Sanders stated she felt if we gave this to the Commission, Council had to trust that if they did not like something it would be up to them to discuss.

Mayor O’Brien stated perhaps Council should give the Commission the “what” not the “how.” He stated, for instance, if the consensus is we want to streamline the legislative process, just tell them that and let them go through the Charter and come up with recommendations on how to streamline the process. Mr. Sabatino questioned then if we should give them some justification on why we thought that was necessary, and Mayor O’Brien stated we could. Mayor O’Brien stated he was just saying instead of giving them specifics, be more general, and tell them what we want to accomplish. Mr. Sauer stated he felt that was where having members of council called in to testify before that Commission came into use, because he felt that is where that argument could be made. Mr. Sauer stated he felt that handing the Commission a document that is redlined was way over bounds. Mr. Smith stated the Commission would receive the red lined document anyway, it was just a matter of which council member would give it to them in their testimony. Mr. Sauer stated coming from a single council member was one thing, but coming from Council as a whole is a different matter. Mr. Sabatino stated he agreed with Mr. Sauer because it would have the implied consent and agreement of all of Council if it came from Council. Mrs. Sanders questioned if that was not the intention when the review began. Mr. Wisniewski stated that was three people, and Mrs. Hammond stated it was never the intention of the entire Council; it was the intention of the Rules Committee at that time. Mr. Fix stated with no objection with anybody on Council ever. Mr. Wisniewski stated he purposely did not participate in this because he did not agree with the changes that were coming across and he would rather deal with it now instead of going in and trying to make changes to a body that he did not feel would listen to him. Mr. Fix stated he was not talking about the specifics of what is being debated, he was talking about the process that was laid out well over two years ago that this was the path we would take, and it has been in the minutes since January of 2007, and no one ever said this was a bad idea. Mr. Fix stated Mr. Sabatino’s biggest concern that he recalled from that entire process was how it would go in front of the citizens, would it be broken into pieces or go as one whole thing. He stated never once did he recall him stating that we should not be doing this. Mr. Sabatino stated the one thing that he has asked all the time was when was this ever voted on, and that should be in the minutes many times. Mr. Wisniewski questioned if Council agreed on the housekeeping changes, unanimously, would anyone be against sending a version of that to the Commission. Mr. Sauer stated if it was structure changes he would have an issue with that. Mr. Sauer stated from his point of view council was elected by the citizens to fulfill a job and to represent them in regards to certain things, however, he didn’t see that job as dealing with the Charter. Mr. Wisniewski stated it is clear there is not going to be agreement on it as is, so if everyone could agree to the housekeeping changes, then anyone that is so inclined could go before the Charter Review Commission and provide their input to them. Mr. Sabatino stated he agreed with Mr. Wisniewski to the extent that Council presented so-called housekeeping changes, but there was a fine line between that and encompassing everything that is proposed. Mr. Fix stated he understood the compromise, and Mr. Smith stated it wasn’t really a compromise because it didn’t achieve anything. Mr. Smith stated it did not achieve any more than the law director and staff as advisors to the Charter Review Commission giving their advice. Mr. Fix stated as long as there is the provision that each council member or any citizen can come in and talk about the points of the Charter they feel should be reviewed, he did not care if it went to them in document form or if he had to go in and read it to them. Mayor O’Brien stated it would not be up to Council; it would be up to the Charter Commission to make their own rules. Mr. Fix stated then he would not agree to not put forward what Rules has worked on for two years. Mr. Sauer stated then Mr. Fix was not willing to seat a Charter Review Commission unless Council had some control of it, and Mr. Fix stated he was not saying control of it, he was saying it made sense for Council to offer the thoughts they had put together over the past two years and they could do with it what they want. Mr. Sabatino stated he could not see why we would have a Charter Review Commission that would not take testimony from the public. Mr. Sauer stated he felt there was a significant difference in the Charter Commission reviewing the Charter and submitting changes to Council to put it on the ballot than if Council gave them a red-lined version to work from.

Mr. Wisniewski stated the vast majority of the changes in this document are not changing the government structure, so why not take out the ones that there is disagreement on and send forward only the housekeeping items that Council agrees on. Mr. Sauer stated his concern was with regard to any type of change that, minor or major, altered the document and its intentions on how things are laid out, how things operate. Mr. Smith stated he felt when the Charter Commission receives the City Charter to be reviewed; it should be in its current form without interference from Council or the Mayor. Mr. Sauer stated he did feel that way, but he was compromising to allow this to move forward. Mr. Wisniewski stated perhaps a work session could be scheduled after the next Council meeting to discuss what is housekeeping or not. Mr. Sauer stated he did not see the need for another work session because he didn’t see where they would get anywhere with it. He stated he did not agree with this process, he did not like it, he felt the Charter should go untouched to the Charter Review Commission and they should submit it back to Council with their recommendations to be submitted to the ballot for the citizens to vote on. Mr. Smith stated what Mr. Wisniewski was recommending seemed to be a very simple process to take all but the administrative changes and Mr. Hartmann could probably get that done and get it back to Council for discussion at a short work session. Mr. Sabatino stated he would suggest instead of a work session a special Council meeting be scheduled where they can actually vote on it. Mr. Wisniewski stated perhaps this could be discussed at Finance Committee meeting tomorrow evening since all Council members will be there if Mr. Hartmann can have the document ready at that time. Mr. Hartmann stated he would get the document ready and electronically forward it to all of Council before the meeting tomorrow evening. Mr. Fix stated he would request this be added it to the Finance Committee agenda tomorrow evening.

3. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, the Council Work Session closed at 9:45 P.M., July 7, 2009.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

______________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk

ATTEST:

_______________________________

Mitch O’Brien, Mayor

ATTACHMENT 1

Lynda,

I'm sorry I'm late on this.

The only comments that I would like to forward with this are the following:

"I feel that the city charter should be reviewed by a City Charter Review Commission composed of citizens of the City of Pickerington that do not currently serve as members of City Council, Mayor, or Township Trustee.  I also feel that the when this commission receives the City Charter to be reviewed that it should be in the form as it currently stands without interference from City Council or the Mayor.  There should be no proposed amendments from City Council or comments to influence the commission one way or the other unless requested by the Charter Review Commission.

This document in my opinion is the document that defines our City Government and sets the rules for the government to abide by.  It is the citizen's document that maintains the power of government in their hands.  That being said, I feel that any interference or attempts to alter the document with the influence of City Council or the Mayor stands in direct contrast to the spirit of the City Charter and what it represents."

Thanks,

Brian Sauer
Councilperson
City of Pickerington  

My Input:

I fully endorse the current draft that is at Rules and before the Council for comment with the following limited exceptions:

  1.  I would like to see a different organization concept than what is currently in the charter.  I would prefer that the organization to include council employees not be in the charter at all, but with a charter requirement that Council adopt/endorse an organizational structure at least every five years.  This way, a new council will look at the organization structure of the city at least every five years.  This ensures that we don't get where we are today with a structure that acts to limit our flexibility. 

  2.  I would like to see the charter review commission evaluate the concept that the mayor is appointed by council from within its ranks to serve a one year term.  By charter, our mayor doesn't have a lot of duties other than mainly ceremonial and presiding at council meetings.  I don't think we need a separate mayor position to fulfill these duties.  As it stands right now, the city manager is supposed to be the "CEO" of the city but he/she reports to both the mayor and council.  This would clean that up.  The mayor would also be the president of council.  Let me be clear on something -- I have nothing against our current mayor, far from it.  But this current set up does serve as a potential source of confusion and cross signals.

  3.  All current council employees really need to be looked at.  The clerk of council isn't a council employee, but should be, and the city engineer should report directly to the city manager.  I'm pretty neutral concerning the law director and the finance director.

Respectively submitted,

Keith Smith

Keith Smith
Pickerington City Council

Hello Lynda,

My input to you for inclusion in the work session concerning the proposed Charter Review is as follows.

Based upon the historical significance that the two previous times there was a charter review no input from Council was presented as a starting point or any other kind of point I am requesting that Council per se stay out of the process. Housekeeping / administrative items can be summarized by SZD and presented via a staff recommendation.

The Charter Review process is intended to be a citizen review, I personally believe it should be a process that is as politically neutral as possible.

The charter is an operating instrument for how our government interacts with its citizens. It should be an instrument that leaves as much power as possible in the hands of the citizens, not relinquishing power to politicians or bureaucrats for the sake of their comfort or will or expediency.

Most of the proposed changes to the charter from Rules Committee fall in the above category in my opinion and as such is responsible for my position.

All elected officials are supposed to represent the best interests of their constituents and in my personal opinion the most effective way to do this is to allow the process to happen as it has in the past unencumbered by any personal agendas or steering of the intended results of the process in any way.

Respectfully,

Mike Sabatino